Summary, Without Quotations: In the summary of the essay you disagree with, or find less persuasive, do not use quotes, or cite any other sources beyond what is considered common knowledge. Instead, use only summary.
You must give the name of the author, but then restate the main points in your own words. To do this, read a part of the essay (at least a paragraph) until you have a good understanding of the content, and then write your summary of that passage without looking back at the text. This is the best way to avoid using the original wording of the essay and thereby committing the “sin” of plagiarism!
Your summary should include:
1. What does the way the claim is stated tell you about the strategy of the argument, and the audience?
2. The major reasons given which support the claim. Do the reasons appeal mostly to logic, values, or emotion?
3. A general indication of the type of supporting evidence given. The underlined words in blue are links to additional evidence. Is it “hard,” objective evidence, or relatively “soft” and subjective? Why do you think the author chose that kind of evidence?
4. Overall, do you think the argument is effective or not? Why?
Analysis, With Quotations: In the analysis of the essay you tend to agree with more, or find most effective, use summary again, but also short quotations from the essay integrated with your writing to support your claims.
Do not quote from any other sources besides the essay you are analyzing. Identify, analyze, and evaluate the evidence presented, as well as the writer’s purpose and use of rhetorical strategies, as described in the Rhetorical Analysis lecture notes in the module. There should be some summary of the content (what is said), but most of the emphasis should be on analysis (how it is said) and why the argument is effective (not just because you agree with it).
Answer the following questions about the article to help write your analysis:
1. Who is the source? Assess the credibility and qualifications of the author.
2. What is the major claim in the article? Where is it most clearly stated or implied? What is the author’s purpose?
3. How effective is the evidence presented, according to the STAR criteria? Explain. Does anything stand out as a strength in the evidence?
4. What are the predominant rhetorical strategies or appeals you see in the article? What they reveal about the intended audience – is the author trying to persuade a sympathetic audience or a more skeptical one?
